I know next to nothing about shooting digital, so please excuse my ignorance. Film is just to damn expensive!

If I wanted to shoot on the XL-2 with a mini35 converter, could I just buy the camera body alone? Would I need a Canon lens? Second, could you please tell me how much a used converter would cost? And lastly, concerning 35mm lenses, what would you reccomend and how much would they cost?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Well, I can tell you that a new Mini 35 can run around 10k new. This isn't an exact figure but I would guess that a used mini35 would cost roughly as much as the XL2. Almost anyone here would recommend that you rent a Mini35 for the duration of your shoot. There ARE cheap ways in constructing a very operational mini 35 set up on your own. The effect can achieve virtually all the same results as a $10,000 professional set up. Information on building this set up can be found on the Marla movie website.

http://www.marlathemovie.com

These independant filmmakers made this short movie with a GL2 and their homemade mini 35 set up. The picture quality is terrific and they probably didnt spend over $150 for the components needed to make the set up. Good luck.

It's kind of like, "if you have to ask, you can't afford it." The Mini35 and one lens will be many times the cost of the XL2 body. The XL2 body should sell for around $3700 or so. Of course you could always rent the Mini35 and whatever lens you'll need for your production... renting is the most affordable way to go.

I just saw a mini35 with XL-1 adapter go on eBay for $4900!

Do a search for "mini35" through the completed listing.

So, hang in there, maybe will come around again soon?

I picked up my first Canon XL1s (PAL version originally from BH Photo Video) last year for a great price and then found a hardly used mini35 still under warranty from a member here on DV Info for around $6800 USD. I then spent about $1200 USD on MF (manual focus) 24mm, 35mm, 55mm and 85mm used Nikor lenses.

A brand new PAL version of the XL1s currently sells for $3,249.95 and a used NTSC version of the XL1s sells for about $3,000.

In total you might be looking at between $11,250 and $12,000 USD for a complete mini35 setup. Of course you can buy the Canon without the Canon video lens and save a couple of hundred dollars but personally I think having the Canon stock lens around would be a bonus just as an alternative option when needed.

As for building your own mini35 - it is true that "the effect can achieve virtually all the same results" but in the case of the visually amazing short film "Marla" the makers went through an extremely long and pain staking process of hand cleaning nearly every frame of video to remove artifacts that were present on the 35mm SLR projection screen, as well spent what I would call an excessive number of hours in post production to get it's final "look". I would not go as far as to call the picture quality of Marla perfect as what is available online is only a fraction of the full resolution one would need to see to make an accurate comparison - even the online manually hand cleaned version shows debris stuck on most of the images scenes. I just don't think this would hold up well on the big screen, but again it may not matter for the intended purpose. In reality for $150 can you really go wrong to try it out?

I suggest renting the mini35 system out for a project, giving it a try and seeing what you think. I've seen as many great films (if not more) shot on DV without the mini35 as I have with the mini35.

Here's a question from someone who has little knowledge of the mini35, what would be the best lens to use with it ? I'm sure the options are endless, but if you just going to get one for all around kind of use, what would it be ?

- Ray

Raymond,

Superspeed primes. I'd rec. Cooke S4 or Carl Zeiss/Arri T1.3 sets.

To answer the original question though, it would be very costly.

"It really depends on how serious you are about frequently using it in the long term and your ability to make the money back.

A good plan for myself has been to aquire my XL2, use saved profits from it's use and other previous projects to buy the Mini35. Then, find grants, investors, loans, more profits, or whatever towards purchasing a set of good prime lenses. Using the complete in-house system to make the return.

Pricing would be roughly as follows:
XL2: $4,000
Mini-35: $9,000
Cooke S4 16mm Prime: $15,200
Cooke S4 25mm Prme: $13,500
Cooke S4 35mm Prime: $13,700
Cooke S4 65mm Prime: $13,700
Cooke S4 100mm Prime: $13,400

Around $82,000 for camera system and lenses alone. Then figure in other production tools like remote follow focus, mattebox/filters, power sources, etc and you've easily got yourself a $90,000+ package.

I have a good way to make back the money on projects, but also to help I would be renting out the equipment as a package or renting the individual components as needed.

Then again, this is because I plan to have a majority of production requirements available in-house. It'll allow for more of my own features/shorts to be done in the long run and an extensive amount of client projects or independent music videos, etc. Especially with the music industry reaching an age of independence, those with all the right tools to save the clients' money in hand will find themselves working more often than not.

Once I own a full package, I'd hope to be shooting something every day I'm healthy and living. I have no problem marrying a camera. *g*

For those without a completely solid plan or a living desire to create motion pictures on their own free will; renting is their best option.

Sincerely,
Kevin Maistros"

HM

<<<-- Originally posted by Shane Carl :
- I know next to nothing about shooting digital
- could I just buy the camera body alone?
- Would I need a Canon lens?
- And lastly, concerning 35mm lenses, what would you reccomend and how much would they cost?
-->>>

I just have to say that I really do not think you are ready to start
shooting with such a system. You claim to know nothing about
shooting digital and your question regarding what 35mm lenses
to get and how much they would cost indicate you have no 35mm
shooting experience either.

So not only do you need to learn two worlds instead of one, you
also don't have any experience and you are talking about A LOT
of money!

All your questions could also have been answered by some simple
research. This also indicates to me that you are probably not
ready to shoot with such an advanced system.

I would suggest learning the ropes of shooting (digital) first and
then move on. It is very hard to shoot with a 35mm lens with a
small depth-of-field. Going after the infamous film look is more
than just a camera and a 35mm lens/DoF. Have you considered
lighting gear, support gear (tripod, dolly etc.) and audio equipment?

Why not rent some simpler digital camera's like the DVX100a,
the XL1S and after you feel comfortable working with them and
have done some short movies (NOTHING beats experience!)
rent an XL2 with mini35 (which should be more common at that
point in time) and see how that works out. If all works beautifully
then start thinking about buying said rig.

Ofcourse this is just my humble opinion and feelings. Just wanted
to point some things out before you start spending anywhere
between $5,000 and $20,000 on equipment.

Good luck!

i am think about using a similar setup for a feature that i want to shoot with 2 xl1 or 2's(pal). i would make the mini35 as proffessional as i could make it.(not making the thing on a budget) i have also realised the amount of work the makers of Marla went though. do you think what i present is possible. i am also going for film look similar to Marla's. i should have a budget of about $55,000, but do not want to spend it on the P+S mini35, as the picture i saw from Marla outflawed any footage i've ever seen from that device. from the mini35. what i am thinking now is that i should do some test work and take it to my chosen post house and get it converted to see how it looks. also the dirt people are refereing to on the picture of Marla are you talking about in the corners and edges where it is not completely clear?

thanks

Rabi: you seriously think a homemade adapter will outdo a fourth
generation $10K professional made adapter (that IS being used
by professionals)?

And you decided this based on some tiny resolution highly
compressed web footage?

Do yourself a favor and use a very small portion of that $55K
and rent it first with some good lenses before passing judgement.
It is also much easier to shoot with (not having to hold the
camera at an odd angle etc.)

p.s. I'm not saying you can't get beautifull footage with a
homemade adapter. I'm just saying you really cannot compare
it to the P+S adapter.

i am simply saying that from all of the footage i have seen on the mini35, Marla had the closest picture i was looking for. and i have also seen footage of what the exact setup minor light and other things look likes that i would of been using and it still doesn't beat Marla. i will be doing alot of expirimenting though with all different kinds of setups including the mini but i doubt it will be the option i'll go for. and the reason why i cant rent and am reluctant to using the mini is becuase i want use 2 two camera setup. renting is also not an option for this feature as we do not benifit from such cheap rental prices as in america.

Sounds like your decision is more money based (ie, two camera's
for example). That is fine. The mini35 isn't for everyone. I just
don't believe the picture is worse than a homemade adapter.

So for my curiosity: what kind of movie are you going to make
Rabi? How expierenced are you and your crew?

i am not saying the picture is worse it's just not the look i want to achieve. and nop it's a little money based but it just not want i want to achieve. if anyone has seen Lockstock and 2 Smoking Barrels. Marla is the closest thing i have ever seen to that look.

Rabi, if your budget is looking close to $55k you would probably be able to easily achieve the look of marla by shooting your project with a Bolex H16 Reflex or some other standard 16mm or super 16mm camera.

The problem with the system that was put together for Marla is that it was not steady. The alignment of the GL2's line of sight to the focus screen of the camera was constantly being moved. The camera had to be steady on something for it to work. In fact, the car scenes (The water advertisement) were to be the hardest and it took them many, many takes and a long time in post to re-adjust the images if it moved. Also the shot of the camera lifting from the ground, following the can in the beer commercial. Otherwise you'll notice that the camera barely moved.

You will have extremely limited shot and location design because of this idea.

The best way to replicate a certain look is to replicate the process.
Shoot 16mm. Marla just looked like a 16mm short with bad web compression. (Good video compression, but it looks like a 16mm short would with only decent compression in my opinion.)

Also note a lot of the shots had a hot spot effect. (The darker edging to the clips). This was caused by the SLR lense but you would easily be able to achieve the same thing with 16mm. In fact some people specifically try to use their camera a certain way to avoid getting that. So, achieving it would be easy I guess since most try to not get that same look.

on a related note why can't regular plain ole' XL lenses (like the 3x) look like mini35 image quality? what's the diff?

Yi Fong,

A major difference would be the quality of the glass in the lense, the angle of view, the focal lengths, and the internal process of shifting focus. (Motion picture lenses are designed to have no breathing of shift when racking focus.)

HM

Raymond - The best lenses to use with the mini35 are the ones you can afford ;) But I recommend high speed fixed lenses, or if you want a cheaper route spend as much as you can afford on a single variable zoom lens, perhaps a 28mm to 80mm. As for brand, Cooke lenses are fast (meaning rated usually at f1.4 or f2) and don't show any "breathing" when pulling focus or "racking" as some people call it. Cooke lenses will also allow you to attach a follow focus unit like the one from Cinetech - but again if you want a cheaper option go for Nikor mount and buy f1.4 or f2 rated lenses off ebay for about $250 USD each on average which is what I did to build up my collection. Pulling focus is still possible and if you really need Cooke lenses then rent them for your purpose, at least with the Nikor option you can shoot your own stuff without renting with only a little compromise.

Michael Kopp - At the time of this writing there is a mini35 system with XL1s selling for $8000 USD on ebay. Depending on the version of the mini35 (A, B or C) this may very well be a really good buy.

To everyone else - I don't think anyone who has not shot with a mini35 system (or similar) and brought their work to broadcast or film/theatre should be giving advice on using homemade adapaters for projects. If you're looking at $100k as Kevin has suggested, I'm sorry but a $150 modified SLR camera and some lenses is not going to come close - sorry for the reality check.

Stop putting faith in projects or clips you see online - go out there and see for yourself. If the makers of Marla hadn't released the PDF file that went along with distributing their film most people would not even know what experiences and hassles they went through making the project. Their documentation also revealed that they edited their entire film UNCOMPRESSED to try and preserve DV quality. If all their hassles sound fun and exciting to you then by all means go out and build your own 35mm system. You will likely spend more money and time in post production then had you just shot it properly in production from the first place.

To add to what Rob says, shooting with ANY 35mm digital system JUST LIKE 35mm FILM is a pain in the ass. Working with shallow depths of fields is extremely difficult and your shooting style can no longer be "point and shoot". Simply adding a dolly to your mini35 system will require you to do endless takes while you learn to pull focus properly to what is acceptable footage for viewing later. Your lighting must be all that much more perfect because the mini35 system eats a couple stops of light and let's face it, without good lighting it will look like video anyway. In the end do what you're comfortable with, if you're young and have loads of spare time then by all means go guerilla and try some of this 35mm stuff out! You gotta learn sooner or later right? Just don't expect miracles or your film to look like "Marla" without a lot of hard (and long) work.

Rabi - I can't believe you are comparing a $150 mini35 to a $10,000 mini35 from footage you have only seen online at a 1/4 of the size it should be! I'm sorry but that is ridiculous. If you intend to keep your footage on the internet then you don't even need a 35mm system, just do fake Depth of Field in post. But if you want your work to screen at film festivals or for broadcast you might need to take a second look at the REAL quality of a homemade mini35.

Lastly I would say the "look" of Marla is ONLY 1/4 accomplished by the DOF offered by the homemade mini35. 1/2 of it was done in post (check out their PDF file with before and after shots and see if you can even get close to what they did in Photoshop). And the other 1/4 is the acting, story, music selection, great editing.. which overall does brings you probably one of the coolest films on the web!

what if a device was made where the lne of sight was not moved and was stable. like i said i hope to build a device similar but more robust. i also will need to build about 4 of them. could someone explore more in depth about the problems with this setup. it is indeed possible to make the camera horizontilly unlike they're vertical version. also before most of jump to conclusions. Marla had i budget of $400. I'll have alot more then that.

Yes, and your larger budget would be more practically applied to shooting with a format that would require MUCH less hastle: 16mm film. You are trying to put a ton of effort into a very much more complicated thing than it's original simple process.

OR, you could just hire us with part of that budget to shoot it and take care of all this technical stuff for you. *grins*

No but seriously, you should research what it would cost you to shoot the film on 16mm as opposed to a very painstaking home-rigging adventure.

However, even if you still insisted on doing it with DV for some unknown reason; even if you made a device to keep it as one object you would still have the problem of the SLR lenses breathing, the focus screen artifacts laying over your footage, even operating such shallow focus on a low resolution camera... with an SLR lense focus ring (Not easy to use for motion pictures at all.. in some cases nearly impossible given the right situation).

Rabi, the look of Marla can be achieved in Photoshop, After Effects, Vegas... take your pick.

The only thing a mini35 system is going to do for you is get shallow depth of field when shooting with an open aperature.

Note that even if you shoot horizontally your image will be upside down in your viewfinder - hopefully with your four cameras and camera operators they are all use to that already ;)

Yes, we achieved a nice look with the Mini35 and XL1s on a music video we did a little while ago.

Everything in Vegas, minus the one cheesy visual effects shot. The director edited, did the effects, coloring, etc all by himself. In fact he did just about everything himself from the get go to finish.

Read the article and check out the videos.

I'm posting about it all here:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33047

It is true that images will be flipped upside down with a homemade set up, and there are plenty of ways to counter this. If someone had a close-to-no-budget (say $55,000) film they were about to shoot. I would recommend renting a mini 35 package over the construction of a mini 35.

Normally with no budget at all (meaning $15 to your name) any film you are shooting can take as long as you want to get principal photography done.

If you've acquired a budget, then you most likely have people who want their money back (within a reasonable amount of time).

Shooting with a homemade mini35 set up will produce many obstacles for the sake of shallow depth of field (of course shallow DOF can also be achieved in post with plug-ins like frischluft for After Effects).

When you rent a mini-35, your hassles will be reduced dramatically and things will run slicker than whale crap in an ice flow.

...I'm still trying to emphasize the fact the Marla's look is mostly attributed to their post production efforts rather than the homemade 35mm system itself...

Actually here are some GREAT examples of some wicked (in a good way) post production work by a writer/director I know living here in the Toronto area. Check out his film "This Moment" and "I boy" www.dimeworth.com/movies.htm.

Let me know what you guys think...

there exists a bar for look and feel that must be crossed for typical viewers to suspend disbelief and get lost in a story.

often video-like DOF video can do that, more often film-like DOF is what people have become used to. so you HAVE to pass a minimum level of 'look'.

technically we can argue for hours, but after you pass that bar, it's THE STORY, it's THE CHARACTERS.

Hey, I think Marla is awesome looking for what they did. But the most intersting parts of the movie are the DIALOG! Not the 'pretty' shots that look like someone had a Panavison rented and had no story.

The Streets said "Let's Puch Things Forward"... and whenever someone asks "what should I buy to achieve X look..." I answer, what's the objective of the film? Scene? What's the narative? What's...

Ok. This is a rant for an XL-2 forum. Maybe I'm just jealous because I don't won one. ;-)

Cheers.

I asked what people thought about the 2 films I pointed out with the link because surprisingly they were shot with single chip (that's right, 1 CCD) dv cameras! It just goes to show that post production plays a major role in a projects final look, not necessarily the DOF or what it was shot on. And as Michael has mentioned, really in the end the story & characters are what count.

I personally love shooting on the Mini35 because I think it removes the "final curse" from DV--wide shots don't resolve as well as film, so softening the background improves the look immeasurably. However, there are sacrifices to be made using this format, even with the slick and easy-to-use Mini35. let alone a homebuild that limits the camera's mobility. You need a LOT more light for your interiors; as mentioned here, focus is a bitch; and if the ultimate shallowness is needed you are precluded from using zooms (the best of them have a f2.8 minimum aperture, and most are slower than that).

I think for many DV filmmakers, shallow depth-of-field has become a flavor-of-the-month in the "how do I make video look like film" quest and is another convenient distraction from having to focus on the daunting task of learning good lighting, composition and shot design.

charles... what about the opposite of DOF? meaning like what orson welles wanted for citizen kane... pulling EVERYTHING in the frame into sharp focus. is that still hard today as it was in his day?

Couldn't be easier--just shoot with your 1/3" DV camera! You'll get nearly everything in focus on a wide to medium length focal setting. Want more? Shoot with a 1/4" chip camera...

p.s. "depth of field" can be either shallow or deep, there is no "opposite".

Rabi, the look of Marla can be achieved in Photoshop, After Effects, Vegas... take your pick.

The only thing a mini35 system is going to do for you is get shallow depth of field when shooting with an open aperature.

Note that even if you shoot horizontally your image will be upside down in your viewfinder - hopefully with your four cameras and camera operators they are all use to that already ;)

Yes, yes, to Dennis you listen :)

I think what you are really responding to in Marla is the color and the way they brought it out much better than what you'll get in raw DV footage.

You don't need an adaptor for that (and an adaptor won't affect your color representation either). The Marla guys experimented and futzed around with their white balance to create different color effects during filming (I think they said they white balanced on a purple card for interiors and an orange card for exteriors) and then experimented with coloring the scenes in After Effects and Photoshop. You don't need a mini35 rig to do that.

It should also be pointed out that the DP of Marla was a fairly experienced guy with several shorts, commercials, and music videos to his credit, and was able to light the scenes very well with limited resources. Also, the guys that made it and did the post work are full-time graphic designers with a strong working knowledge of color, photoshop, and image manipulation. So that needs to be taken into account when viewing the finished product.

That being said, the color work they did on Marla should be repeatable by anyone with similar tools (DV camcorder, photoshop, after effects, big harddrives) and enough experimentation.

Actually if you watch the "Clips and Jokes from BTS" link in this thread, http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33047 there are parts of it where you see the footage transform from that regular "DV look" to rich, saturated and amazing colored footage! - which I think is the point that Joshua, Holly Miller and I are trying to get across.

Hey, you don't need to listen to me or anyone - in the end do what you suits you best ;)

But if you really want to shoot with the XL2/mini35, my XL2 mini35 rig is ready to go and I am available for hire...

Good thing for that Dennis. Regardless of all the crap that anyone likes to say hoo ha about this, and he ho about that... the main thing is you need to get your project done. Milk every bit of experience you can get from each and every minute you are attempting to construct your visions.

edit: Shane Karl hasn't said a word in this thread since he started it. Do you think we scared him off with our foolish debate? I've seen that happen a few times, poor folks just need an answer and we give them a full blown debate about mini-35.

SORRY SHANE!

whoa... that was kewl the changing of the colors and stuff. even though i slack off here quite often i haven't had a chance to play around with my editing software much (vegas5) in terms of color correction.

that was all that was wasn't it? just color correction. sorta reminds me of that documentary on fellowship where peter jackson uses a tool to change the color of the shot footage. of course that's very pro =).

Anybody,
Can one use still 35mm lenses (with a redrockmicro 35mm adaptor)
on the XL series cameras?

Michael Hamilton